31–40 of 157 posts
What a joke, if companies in unrelated countries don't want to play by sanctions, I see no reason to hold it against them. Unrelated states should have no power over this. The amount of hate Huawei gets just for this from otherwise reasonable people is rather excessive.
So a company's business practices should supersede a country's laws. Does this apply to only to sanctions? How about environmental laws?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The quotes are by individuals associated with the organizations, it doesn't appear to be the official position of the think-tanks. I think it is unfair to call the Brookings Institute a "right-wing pay-to-play lobbying group" but you are just sourcing from a left-leaning activist group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution#Funding_...
What a joke, if companies in unrelated countries don't want to play by sanctions, I see no reason to hold it against them. Unrelated states should have no power over this. The amount of hate Huawei gets just for this from otherwise reasonable people is rather excessive.
So a company's business practices should supersede a country's laws. Does this apply to only to sanctions? How about environmental laws?
Companies should not be subject to the laws of arbitrary countries. Would you say US copyright laws should be applied globally too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Outlawing business" (i.e. sanctions) are being used to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. If you're talking about the current US sanctions, I think you're wrong. The deal ensured Iran could not develop nuclear weapons, through a strict regime of inspections. Without the deal, there are no inspections anymore and Iran is free to develop said weapons. It seems that the real purpose of the sanctions is to w…
I'm talking about the sanctions that the article is, i.e. the pre-deal ones that Meng Wanzhou is accused of violating. That said, the stated reason for the current sanctions is still nuclear weapons [0]. An accurate evaluation of why the US chose to withdraw from that deal is probably not possible with publicly available information. The limited analysis in your comment seems to assume that the deal was effective, so…
Of course. And I think it's a blatant lie.
> The limited analysis in your comment seems to assume that the deal was effective, something I don't think we have enough information to reliably evaluate
The IAEA opinion is that we do, and that Iran has complied with the terms of the deal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So a company's business practices should supersede a country's laws. Does this apply to only to sanctions? How about environmental laws?
This isn't a country's laws - Huawei is a Chinese company, it's not Chinese prosecutors going after Huawei. Companies should not be subject to the laws of arbitrary countries. Would you say US copyright laws should be applied globally too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't a country's laws - Huawei is a Chinese company, it's not Chinese prosecutors going after Huawei. Companies should not be subject to the laws of arbitrary countries. Would you say US copyright laws should be applied globally too?
Countries that enforce American sanctions do so because they're signatories to various treaties. Similarly, countries that enforce American copyright laws are also signatories. It's opt-in, often under real-or-perceived economic duress, but it's not like it's totally arbitrary.
International treaties should not override a country's laws - Canada for example is already in brazen violation of internation drug treaties.
If US authorities want them on these charges, they should be presenting legitimate evidence to Chinese prosecutors and arguing over the treaty in question, not playing world police.
Yeah, and ISIS has been fighting with American weapons for years. Hypocrisy much?